According to the San Francisco Association of Realtors.

Not all neighborhoods were included in the report.

Average Home Price, April 2005
Russian Hill...........$10,150,000
Pacific Heights......$4,793,657
Presidio Heights.....$2,187,500
Cow Hollow...........$2,157,000
Marina..................$2,127,857
Telegraph Hill.........$2,024,500
Lower Pacific Heights..$1,716,429
Anza Vista..............$1,270,000

Average Condo Price, April 2005
Russian Hill...............$1,315,371
Presidio Heights.........$1,281,500
Pacific Heights..........$1,159,543
Financial District........$1,053,222
Nob Hill.....................$957,297
Marina.......................$897,059
North Waterfront.........$809,857
Telegraph Hill..............$790,867
Alamo Square.............$742,750
Lower Pacific Heights....$711,029
Anza Vista..................$661,000
North Panhandle...........$640,457
North Beach................$631,000
Van Ness/ Civic Center..$620,333
Cow Hollow..................$586,000
Hayes Valley................$567,600
Western Addition..........$388,778
Tenderloin...................$386,250

:eek2: Wow! :dizzy: :righton: :crazy2: I always thought that Pacific Heights was the most expensive.... :nuts: :tongue3: :omg: :dunno: Good list, though. Thanks for posting it. :) :bow: :applause: :applause: :applause: :colgate:

WTF. Anybody that buys a house for that must either be Bill Gates or mentally insane.

Per The US Census Bureau

There are 907 Communities in the State of California(or at least, 907 Census Designated Places, i.e. CDPs) Here are the Average Family Income for All Bay Area Communities

State Rank/ City,State/County, State/Average Family Income

$100,000+ 71
1 Atherton, CA San Mateo, CA 361,092
5 Portola Valley, CA San Mateo, CA 303,494
6 Hillsborough, CA San Mateo, CA 297,162
7 Woodside, CA San Mateo, CA 296,378
8 Belvedere, CA Marin, CA 294,739
10 Los Altos Hills, CA Santa Clara, CA 265,026
11 Kentfield, CA Marin, CA 242,912
12 Tiburon, CA Marin, CA 235,782
14 Piedmont, CA Alameda, CA 227,776
16 Loyola, CA Santa Clara, CA 220,153
17 Orinda, CA Contra Costa, CA 211,298
19 Saratoga, CA Santa Clara, CA 205,791
20 Blackhawk-Camino Tassajara, CA Contra Costa, CA 204,862
21 Monte Sereno, CA Santa Clara, CA 200,312
22 Emerald Lake Hills, CA San Mateo, CA 199,285
23 Alamo, CA Contra Costa, CA 198,525
25 Los Altos, CA Santa Clara, CA 196,666
30 Sausalito, CA Marin, CA 181,639
31 Mill Valley, CA Marin, CA 180,746
32 Beverly Hills, CA Los Angeles, CA 178,439 Obviously not in the Bay Area, but interesting to see BH compared to Bay Area towns
36 West Menlo Park, CA San Mateo, CA 170,209
37 Lexington Hills, CA Santa Clara, CA 166,688
39 Los Gatos, CA Santa Clara, CA 165,625
42 Danville, CA Contra Costa, CA 159,676
43 Ross, CA Marin, CA 159,470
44 Menlo Park, CA San Mateo, CA 158,295
45 Lafayette, CA Contra Costa, CA 156,716
46 Palo Alto, CA Santa Clara, CA 156,683
49 Tamalpais-Homestead Valley, CA Marin, CA 153,513
50 Strawberry, CA Marin, CA 153,068
52 Moraga, CA Contra Costa, CA 150,962
54 Larkspur, CA Marin, CA 150,196
56 Highlands-Baywood Park, CA San Mateo, CA 147,047
57 Kensington, CA Contra Costa, CA 145,121
58 Black Point-Green Point, CA Marin, CA 144,683
64 San Carlos, CA San Mateo, CA 133,922
65 Cupertino, CA Santa Clara, CA 133,435
69 Burlingame, CA San Mateo, CA 130,602
73 Pleasanton, CA Alameda, CA 126,758
74 Corte Madera, CA Marin, CA 126,242
76 Half Moon Bay, CA San Mateo, CA 125,532
77 Foster City, CA San Mateo, CA 125,473
79 El Granada, CA San Mateo, CA 124,228
81 San Ramon, CA Contra Costa, CA 123,568
82 Green Valley, CA Solano, CA 122,703
83 Montara, CA San Mateo, CA 121,866
84 Moss Beach, CA San Mateo, CA 121,269
85 Clayton, CA Contra Costa, CA 120,276
86 Stanford, CA Santa Clara, CA 120,044
87 Belmont, CA San Mateo, CA 119,949
90 San Anselmo, CA Marin, CA 117,905
97 Lucas Valley-Marinwood, CA Marin, CA 114,061
98 Discovery Bay, CA Contra Costa, CA 113,845
105 Morgan Hill, CA Santa Clara, CA 111,356
107 East Foothills, CA Santa Clara, CA 110,085
109 San Rafael, CA Marin, CA 108,759
110 Sunol, CA Alameda, CA 107,512
111 Boulder Creek, CA Santa Cruz, CA 107,313
113 Walnut Creek, CA Contra Costa, CA 107,106
114 Morada, CA San Joaquin, CA 106,770
117 Woodacre, CA Marin, CA 105,436
123 Scotts Valley, CA Santa Cruz, CA 103,549
125 Rio del Mar, CA Santa Cruz, CA 103,029
126 San Mateo, CA San Mateo, CA 102,775
127 Milpitas, CA Santa Clara, CA 102,320
129 Cambrian Park, CA Santa Clara, CA 101,116
131 Mountain View, CA Santa Clara, CA 100,454
132 San Martin, CA Santa Clara, CA 100,412
133 Millbrae, CA San Mateo, CA 100,225
134 Inverness, CA Marin, CA 100,183
135 Redwood City, CA San Mateo, CA 100,142
136 Fremont, CA Alameda, CA 100,141

$75,000-$99,999 55
139 Sunnyvale, CA Santa Clara, CA 99,564
143 Deer Park, CA Napa, CA 98,715
144 Pleasant Hill, CA Contra Costa, CA 98,401
145 Bodega Bay, CA Sonoma, CA 98,233
148 Day Valley, CA Santa Cruz, CA 97,516
149 Novato, CA Marin, CA 97,059
150 Berkeley, CA Alameda, CA 96,396
151 Fairfax, CA Marin, CA 96,306
152 Campbell, CA Santa Clara, CA 96,090
153 Dublin, CA Alameda, CA 96,066
157 St. Helena, CA Napa, CA 95,407
158 Aptos Hills-Larkin Valley, CA Santa Cruz, CA 95,344
161 Corralitos, CA Santa Cruz, CA 94,992
166 Livermore, CA Alameda, CA 94,485
170 Santa Venetia, CA Marin, CA 92,860
172 Aptos, CA Santa Cruz, CA 92,729
173 Santa Clara, CA Santa Clara, CA 92,702
174 Pacifica, CA San Mateo, CA 92,569
175 San Jose, CA Santa Clara, CA 92,553
182 Benicia, CA Solano, CA 90,948
183 San Francisco, CA San Francisco, CA 90,928
186 Brisbane, CA San Mateo, CA 90,557
189 Hercules, CA Contra Costa, CA 90,405
194 Castro Valley, CA Alameda, CA 89,693
196 El Verano, CA Sonoma, CA 89,506
197 Fairview, CA Alameda, CA 89,251
199 El Cerrito, CA Contra Costa, CA 88,608
200 Lagunitas-Forest Knolls, CA Marin, CA 88,530
210 Union City, CA Alameda, CA 86,438
216 Alameda, CA Alameda, CA 85,981
218 Martinez, CA Contra Costa, CA 85,675
220 Forestville, CA Sonoma, CA 85,248
226 Petaluma, CA Sonoma, CA 84,394
228 Bolinas, CA Marin, CA 84,184
234 Sonoma, CA Sonoma, CA 82,880
236 Larkfield-Wikiup, CA Sonoma, CA 82,633
240 Newark, CA Alameda, CA 81,663
244 Brentwood, CA Contra Costa, CA 81,270
246 Windsor, CA Sonoma, CA 80,647
247 San Bruno, CA San Mateo, CA 80,612
248 Daly City, CA San Mateo, CA 80,512
253 Opal Cliffs, CA Santa Cruz, CA 79,299
256 Santa Cruz, CA Santa Cruz, CA 79,102
257 Soquel, CA Santa Cruz, CA 79,101
259 South San Francisco, CA San Mateo, CA 78,861
260 Gilroy, CA Santa Clara, CA 78,482
264 Tara Hills, CA Contra Costa, CA 77,421
266 Colma, CA San Mateo, CA 77,387
272 Concord, CA Contra Costa, CA 76,493
273 Pinole, CA Contra Costa, CA 76,474
275 Yountville, CA Napa, CA 76,307
276 Temelec, CA Sonoma, CA 76,249
277 El Sobrante, CA Contra Costa, CA 76,155
278 Broadmoor, CA San Mateo, CA 76,079
280 Albany, CA Alameda, CA 75,957

$50,000-$74,999 55
290 Antioch, CA Contra Costa, CA 74,690
291 Santa Rosa, CA Sonoma, CA 74,633
292 Rohnert Park, CA Sonoma, CA 74,604
297 Occidental, CA Sonoma, CA 74,308
302 Napa, CA Napa, CA 74,086
306 Crockett, CA Contra Costa, CA 73,419
308 East Richmond Heights, CA Contra Costa, CA 73,209
311 Vacaville, CA Solano, CA 72,858
313 Capitola, CA Santa Cruz, CA 72,720
316 Rio Vista, CA Solano, CA 72,300
319 Oakley, CA Contra Costa, CA 72,012
322 Alum Rock, CA Santa Clara, CA 71,802
326 Suisun City, CA Solano, CA 71,611
329 Felton, CA Santa Cruz, CA 71,488
335 Emeryville, CA Alameda, CA 71,038
338 San Leandro, CA Alameda, CA 70,930
339 Sebastopol, CA Sonoma, CA 70,834
343 Ben Lomond, CA Santa Cruz, CA 70,020
347 North Fair Oaks, CA San Mateo, CA 69,760
350 Cotati, CA Sonoma, CA 69,646
354 San Lorenzo, CA Alameda, CA 69,225
355 Waldon, CA Contra Costa, CA 69,010
357 Graton, CA Sonoma, CA 68,808
360 Healdsburg, CA Sonoma, CA 68,558
362 Rodeo, CA Contra Costa, CA 68,171
368 Fairfield, CA Solano, CA 67,786
375 Hayward, CA Alameda, CA 66,904
379 Dixon, CA Solano, CA 66,649
380 Vallejo, CA Solano, CA 66,604
382 Live Oak CDP, CA Santa Cruz, CA 66,556
396 Oakland, CA Alameda, CA 65,014
409 Boyes Hot Springs, CA Sonoma, CA 63,775
411 Pacheco, CA Contra Costa, CA 63,418
412 East Palo Alto, CA San Mateo, CA 63,417
414 Bayview-Montalvin, CA Contra Costa, CA 63,340
416 Pittsburg, CA Contra Costa, CA 63,148
423 American Canyon, CA Napa, CA 62,841
424 Bethel Island, CA Contra Costa, CA 62,770
440 Twin Lakes, CA Santa Cruz, CA 61,807
443 Calistoga, CA Napa, CA 61,700
444 Amesti, CA Santa Cruz, CA 61,693
446 Interlaken, CA Santa Cruz, CA 61,560
447 Seven Trees, CA Santa Clara, CA 61,532
460 Richmond, CA Contra Costa, CA 60,457
470 Vine Hill, CA Contra Costa, CA 59,916
491 Mountain View CDP, CA Contra Costa, CA 58,642
496 Bay Point, CA Contra Costa, CA 58,451
513 Eldridge, CA Sonoma, CA 57,736
526 Rollingwood, CA Contra Costa, CA 57,091
533 Freedom, CA Santa Cruz, CA 56,848
567 Roseland, CA Sonoma, CA 55,068
569 Watsonville, CA Santa Cruz, CA 54,716
573 Ashland, CA Alameda, CA 54,541
612 Cherryland, CA Alameda, CA 52,231
636 San Pablo, CA Contra Costa, CA 50,832

Under $50,000 2
719 Guerneville, CA Sonoma, CA 46,311
784 Buena Vista, CA Santa Clara, CA 42,374

wow los gatos is $50k less on average than saratoga, i wouldnt have guessed that much

woot I make # 36

What are the realtions like bwtween San Francisco and Oakland? Do Oaklanders look up to San Francisco as the metropolis or do they diss it as a yuppie hole? How fierce is the sporting rivalry between both cities?

And what about San Jose? Do they have a younger brother complex towards San Francisco? Do they support the Giants and the 49ers with the same passion as San Franciscans?

I believe people from Oakland are proud of their hometown just like San Franciscans. San Jose isn't much of a ****, it could be divided up into several cities like the other half of the Silicon Valley and you wouldn't notice a thing. Its all basically the Valley, there isn't much concern for Oakland, San Francisco, or even the local area because there are so many migrants from out of state/country, with no roots.

There are some interesting dynamics at play in the Bay Area right now. I've seen a lot of regionalism arise lately. For example, I'm not from Oakland, but some very good friends of mine are and they've indicated to me that they often resent being "clumped" into San Francisco's realm, like they're not their own distinct region. I suppose that's the downside to being just across the bay from them. On the other hand, its funny to me that San Franciscans often talk as if coming to San Jose (about a 40 or so mile drive) is a major trek. In turn, I think San Jose, and all of Silicon Valley, therefore have benefited from being a little more out of SF's realm of influence. (You'll see many instances in which SF tries to pass itself off as part of Silicon Valley, but in truth, it has little to do with the large valley companies, such as Cisco, Intel, eBay, Yahoo, Adobe, Google.) I've said it before on this board, but dynamics are changing in the Bay Area, and the rise of San Jose over the past two decades seems to have been a hard pill for SF to swallow. Here's an excerpt from a 2003 Chron article about a change in censuc designation that illustrates my point:


A great city forced to eat crow

Census Bureau decides we now live in the San Jose metro area
Anastasia Hendrix, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, July 18, 2003

San Franciscans don't live in San Francisco anymore, the federal government has decided.

Where they live is San Jose.

Well, not San Jose exactly, but the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland metropolitan area, a classification quietly adopted by the Census Bureau. The agency decided a few weeks ago to change the way it refers to the Bay Area -- statistically speaking -- by ranking the seat of the Silicon Valley as the region's major metropolis based on its population, if not its popularity among tourists.

William Frey, a demographer with the Brookings Institution, said he suspects many San Franciscans will be surprised to learn that their city has lost its top billing.

"Although the name may be put together from a bureaucratic standpoint by just looking at population sizes, it also has symbolic meaning that's more real in people's minds," he said from his office in Washington, D.C., a city that, if census rules were applied uniformly, might be in Baltimore.

"In a way, it's kind of sad to see the demise of San Francisco, at least in the naming of the area. But having said that, I mean, times change and we're talking about a new century and a new economy, and I think San Jose is on the forefront of that."

No federal money allocation or programs are affected by changing from the previous designation of San Francisco-San Jose-Oakland. It's purely a matter of local pride and bragging rights...

Dont get me wrong, SF is great city, but so too are Oakland and San Jose. Like a young child, San Francisco is going to have to learn to share.

That article is very ignorant and really represents only a change in the way the region is acknowledged by the federal govt. As far as influence, I dont think there is any doubt as to which municipality is "The City."

Dont get me wrong, SF is great city, but so too are Oakland and San Jose. Like a young child, San Francisco is going to have to learn to share.
SF might be younger, but it grew up much faster ;)

That article is very ignorant and really represents only a change in the way the region is acknowledged by the federal govt. As far as influence, I dont think there is any doubt as to which municipality is "The City."

here we go again........sf vs sj :ohno:

I hate it when people try to start a SF vs. [enter Bay Area city here]. Yes, SF is great, but without San Jose and Silicon Valley it would not have the money or prestige it has. Without the South Bay's population the "SF Bay Area" would be unable to compete with SoCal. All of that new growth in SOMA?? Fueled by technology jobs created in the South Bay. This great projects the City invests in? Paid for, in part, by taxes that are a direct results of tech conventions. I could go on...

As for the South Bay let's face it– if we weren't near SF how would anyone in the world know where we were? "So, where is San Jose?" "Uhhh, about 300 miles north of LA?" Plus SF is a fun place for us to hang out and give the whole area a landmark.

An Oakland? It's sort of a hybrid: old like SF but without its pretentiousness. Always in the shadows like SJ but with much more of a "center."

That article is very ignorant and really represents only a change in the way the region is acknowledged by the federal govt. As far as influence, I dont think there is any doubt as to which municipality is "The City."

San Francisco could fall to tenth place in California population and it would still be The City. San Francisco is the type of city that has the delightful audacity to take its 3/4 million people and hold them up to match any city of any size not just in the nation, but in the world.

San Francisco is such a special place it doesn't have to play the dumb population game or to actually believe that more people makes a city greater.

I don't give a rat's ass how big San Jose gets. Even with 2,000,000 people, you couldn't cross the Golden Gate to get there.

San Francisco could fall to tenth place in California population and it would still be The City. San Francisco is the type of city that has the delightful audacity to take its 3/4 million people and hold them up to match any city of any size not just in the nation, but in the world.

San Francisco is such a special place it doesn't have to play the dumb population game or to actually believe that more people makes a city greater.

I don't give a rat's ass how big San Jose gets. Even with 2,000,000 people, you couldn't cross the Golden Gate to get there.

You may not give a "rat's ass," but its not really about size (in fact, I fear San Jose following the LA model too closely), it’s about economics. Silicon Valley is the economic engine of the Bay Area PERIOD (just ask the 49ers!).

San Francisco's nation/international influence is largely cultural, and deservedly so. But there are government official's all around the country and the world salivating for a taste of the economic and entrepreneurial infrastructure in San Jose and the Silicon Valley. That's why San Jose politics and businesses are watched closely globally (for example, all these places you hear about proclaiming to be the “home of green technology” took their cue from SJ, which years ago set that as its newest technology base).

It’s not about which city is better or worse. In the end, I think SF and SJ are lucky to have each other.

You may not give a "rat's ass," but its not really about size (in fact, I fear San Jose following the LA model too closely), it’s about economics. Silicon Valley is the economic engine of the Bay Area PERIOD (just ask the 49ers!).

San Francisco's nation/international influence is largely cultural, and deservedly so. But there are government official's all around the country and the world salivating for a taste of the economic and entrepreneurial infrastructure in San Jose and the Silicon Valley. That's why San Jose politics and businesses are watched closely globally (for example, all these places you hear about proclaiming to be the “home of green technology” took their cue from SJ, which years ago set that as its newest technology base).

It’s not about which city is better or worse. In the end, I think SF and SJ are lucky to have each other.

i don't question the legitamacy of San Jose; I just see SF as being the heart and soul of the Bay Area.

An out-of-the-blue question: can anyone give a polulation estimate for the SF peninsula?

An out-of-the-blue question: can anyone give a poulation estimate for the SF peninsula?
It depends on what you consider the peninsula. When people around here say "peninsula", they are referring to the area that includes San Mateo County and the northern cities of Santa Clara County. The city of San Francisco is not included in the area referred to as the "peninsula" by locals.

San Mateo county has about 700,000 people. The population of Santa Clara County is about 1,700,000, but only a small part of Santa Clara County is considered part of the peninsula. In general, most would consider Palo Alto, Mountain View and maybe Sunnyvale in SC County as part of the peninsula.

So, in local terms, the "peninsula" has a population of roughly about 800,000-900,000 people.

The Bay Area as a whole is a distinct, and unique community, I think most people are proud of the Bay Area, just as much as they're proud of being in whatever city they come from.

My friends always used to call my home city "Foster Shitty", but most of them, after they left for college, realize how different and nice our hometown is. I think its the same for people, not just in the Bay Area, but pretty much everywhere.

I don't think people should get all sensible about what a really old article or someone says.
SF is The City, SJ the tech hub, and Oakland and the east bay are the industrialish/bedroom side of the bay...see? we are all happy!:happy:

I don't think people should get all sensible about what a really old article or someone says.
SF is The City, SJ the tech hub, and Oakland and the east bay are the industrialish/bedroom side of the bay...see? we are all happy!:happy:

And the peninsula...? :?

And the peninsula...? :?

that's for people too rich for the city! :) i <3 the bay

that's for people too rich for the city! :) i <3 the bay

I live in the peninsula... I thought the city would be more expensive.

About the little brother complex, it's starting to go both ways. San Jose wants to be big and famous like San Francisco, while San Francisco is worried about the slight chance that we eventually will be. That's why they'll always put down San Jose no matter how many strides it makes to become a so-called "real city," irrespective of the city up north. In the end, the height of buildings will always be the determining factor is most people's minds.

that's for people too rich for the city! :) i <3 the bay

Peninsula? I doubt it. The houses in the peninsula might be bigger (read suburban), but that doesn't necessarily means that it is a place for people too rich for the city. If anything, the "old money" has remained in Nob Hill and Pacific Heights. Also, Marin has more claim to the "rich" region of the Bay Area than suburban Peninsula. The super rich in the Bay Area would rather have a vineyard in Napa/Sonoma, although some do live in private communities south of SF.

I am rather new to the Bay Area, but I have already seen some signs of the regional dynamics. For example, I do too consider San Jose to be "far away" from the more urban areas of the region (SF/Oakland). I have been to SJ proper once, and it does look like a suburban center. It is center of much of the new economic activity, but somethings tells me that if the 49ers move they will still show images of SF during the TV breaks.

San Francisco is still the center of the Bay Area and often reaps the benefits of what other sub-regions have developed. For example, I found funny how Silicon Valley was described on a wikipedia article as being "south of San Francisco" instead of being (correctly) associated with San Jose. Also, many technological companies have an obsession to get offices in the urban heart of SF even when it's not necessary for them to do so. The same applies to government agencies and their new peculiar federal building. This might be based on the allure of San Francisco, the better public transportation, or the fact prime office space was cheaper a few months ago.

The East Bay is sometimes seen as a bedroom area for SF/SJ, but I can see the same thing in some parts of Peninsula. Also, the area around Oakland looks the most industrial. Oakland should be considered as having it's own nature/culture, and I see it as being more underrated than San Jose. Some areas of the Northern East Bay are often associated with education or being "whiter" because of Albany's recognized public schools and the presence of UC Berkeley. Yes, UC Berkeley is a majority non-white student institution, but the faculty and the city are much whiter in comparison to Oakland.

Peninsula? I doubt it. The houses in the peninsula might be bigger (read suburban), but that doesn't necessarily means that it is a place for people too rich for the city. If anything, the "old money" has remained in Nob Hill and Pacific Heights. Also, Marin has more claim to the "rich" region of the Bay Area than suburban Peninsula. The super rich in the Bay Area would rather have a vineyard in Napa/Sonoma, although some do live in private communities south of SF.
I'm not sure where you are getting this idea about where the super rich in the Bay area live, but your notions about this topic seem rather skewed.

Check out Forbes list of most expensive zip codes in the US for 2006(I couldn't find the list for 2007). Six of the top fifty are from cities in San Mateo and Santa Clara County. Atherton, in San Mateo county was #1 in 2005, although it fell slightly in 2006. SF County has ZERO zip codes in the top 50.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/7/Rank_1.html

Peninsula? I doubt it. The houses in the peninsula might be bigger (read suburban), but that doesn't necessarily means that it is a place for people too rich for the city. If anything, the "old money" has remained in Nob Hill and Pacific Heights. Also, Marin has more claim to the "rich" region of the Bay Area than suburban Peninsula. The super rich in the Bay Area would rather have a vineyard in Napa/Sonoma, although some do live in private communities south of SF.

Cities on the Penninsula have long been the bedroom communities for people working in the city. Basically, the hills between San Mateo and San Francisco directly East of 280 have been the people with "money" who didnt want to live in ther city lived. You have to remember that before the Golden Gate, there was no convenient way of getting to Marin.
I will agree that the old money is perhaps still in Nob Hill and Pac Heights but those people also probably have home on the Peninsula or Marin. And remember, Larry Ellison, Steve Jobs and the Google guys all live on the Peninsula.

Compare what you get for $4-6M in Pac Heights with Los Altos Hills, Woodside, Atherton, or Palo Alto, and you'll know why many affluent individuals working in SF choose to live in the Peninsula. Besides, I've never had someone try to sell me crack in downtown Palo Alto or Los Altos.

I'm not sure where you are getting this idea about where the super rich in the Bay area live, but your notions about this topic seem rather skewed.
Well, he said he's new to the area. He's probably still honeymooning with the San Francisco he saw on TV before moving west.

I am rather new to the Bay Area, but I have already seen some signs of the regional dynamics. For example, I do too consider San Jose to be "far away" from the more urban areas of the region (SF/Oakland). I have been to SJ proper once, and it does look like a suburban center. It is center of much of the new economic activity, but somethings tells me that if the 49ers move they will still show images of SF during the TV breaks.

San Francisco is still the center of the Bay Area and often reaps the benefits of what other sub-regions have developed. For example, I found funny how Silicon Valley was described on a wikipedia article as being "south of San Francisco" instead of being (correctly) associated with San Jose. Also, many technological companies have an obsession to get offices in the urban heart of SF even when it's not necessary for them to do so. The same applies to government agencies and their new peculiar federal building. This might be based on the allure of San Francisco, the better public transportation, or the fact prime office space was cheaper a few months ago.


You are correct in some of your assertions. However, youre missing the larger point, mostly because you dont take into consideration the future. Yes, SF is the current center of the BA, but we are beginning to see a shift of power southward. If we dont see a complete shift of power eventually (like over the next 50 years), then we'll at least see a two-center region emerge. I understand why this makes SF uncomfortable, but I still cant see how this isnt a win-win for everyone in the BA. (Lets face it, working together is our only chance to compete against a NYC or Chicago) Again, this may not happen next year or next decade, but it is coming.

By the way, SJ is not that far from SF. Its ridiculous that people think that. Ft. Worth and Dallas are about 30 miles apart yet they work in synch just fine. SF and SJ are only about 40 miles apart and yet SJ is "so far away." Silly...

Its already a two center region with San Francisco and Silicon Valley. SF is still ranked as the 4th largest financial center in North America after New York, Chicago, and Toronto. The Silicon Valley is the most innovative technology center (not sure if there's a ranking for this), these are two different animals and also I don't believe there's ever going to be a shift of power from SF to San Jose. They don't have to work together anyway. SJ is barely a city and not far more important than the other Valley cities so it won't have an anchor, but that's fine since everyone knows what "Silicon Valley" is.

The Bay Area will never be able to compete with NYC, Chicago or LA, but it has competition with nearby technology centers like Seattle and LA, and is not likely to fall behind.

Its already a two center region with San Francisco and Silicon Valley. SF is still ranked as the 4th largest financial center in North America after New York, Chicago, and Toronto. The Silicon Valley is the most innovative technology center (not sure if there's a ranking for this), these are two different animals and also I don't believe there's ever going to be a shift of power from SF to San Jose. They don't have to work together anyway. SJ is barely a city and not far more important than the other Valley cities so it won't have an anchor, but that's fine since everyone knows what "Silicon Valley" is.

Wow, you must not work in technology. San Jose has far and away the largest technology cluster in the world, bar none (the golden triangle). The second largest cluster in the world isn't even 1/3 the size of San Jose's. If you have ever used anything called a computer or the Internet, then you are using a product requiring vast amounts of IP from San Jose companies. There is no other city on earth with as many semiconductor firms as San Jose. In additon, you might be thinking to yourself, the major chip companies like Interl, AMD, and NVIDEA Intel are not located in SJ (although they are closeby), but the technologies that they use to actually design and build the chips ARE coming from SJ companies like Cadence, KLA-Tencor, Mentor Graphics, Pixelworks, Magma, etc. etc. Cisco is the largest Internet infrastructure company in the world by far and is headquartered in SJ. Adobe, BEA Systems, etc... all San Jose (and those 2 are HQed downtown).

San Jose plays a pinnacle role in the entire technology industry... it is THE anchor of Silicon Valley and Silicon Valley is THE anchor of the entire IT industry. You must be a banker.

Franhattan's anti-car culture comes into play twice here:

-San Jose is "far away" if you can't drive

-San Jose is "barely a city" if you can't drive

Franhattan's anti-car culture comes into play twice here:
-San Jose is "far away" if you can't drive


I believe that Caltrain goes directly into downtown San Jose... not sure how long the trip is but I'm guessing between 60-75min.

Franhattan's anti-car culture comes into play twice here:

-San Jose is "barely a city" if you can't drive

You don't really need a car if you're in Downtown San Jose. From most areas in downtown you have all basic services (hair salons, dentist offices, grocery, video stores), 100+ restaurants, one of the largest libraries in the US, convention center, dozens of bars and nightclubs, comedy clubs, SJ Arena, museums, parks, a killer movie theater, etc. all within walking distance.

If there was a train that ran to Santana Row/Valley Fair a car would be even less of a necessity. Maybe someday.

Its already a two center region with San Francisco and Silicon Valley. SF is still ranked as the 4th largest financial center in North America after New York, Chicago, and Toronto. The Silicon Valley is the most innovative technology center (not sure if there's a ranking for this), these are two different animals and also I don't believe there's ever going to be a shift of power from SF to San Jose. They don't have to work together anyway. SJ is barely a city and not far more important than the other Valley cities so it won't have an anchor, but that's fine since everyone knows what "Silicon Valley" is.

The Bay Area will never be able to compete with NYC, Chicago or LA, but it has competition with nearby technology centers like Seattle and LA, and is not likely to fall behind.

San Jose's technology companies FUEL SF as a financial center. Why is that so hard to understand? :nuts:

Wow, you must not work in technology. San Jose has far and away the largest technology cluster in the world, bar none (the golden triangle). The second largest cluster in the world isn't even 1/3 the size of San Jose's. If you have ever used anything called a computer or the Internet, then you are using a product requiring vast amounts of IP from San Jose companies. There is no other city on earth with as many semiconductor firms as San Jose. In additon, you might be thinking to yourself, the major chip companies like Interl, AMD, and NVIDEA Intel are not located in SJ (although they are closeby), but the technologies that they use to actually design and build the chips ARE coming from SJ companies like Cadence, KLA-Tencor, Mentor Graphics, Pixelworks, Magma, etc. etc. Cisco is the largest Internet infrastructure company in the world by far and is headquartered in SJ. Adobe, BEA Systems, etc... all San Jose (and those 2 are HQed downtown).

San Jose plays a pinnacle role in the entire technology industry... it is THE anchor of Silicon Valley and Silicon Valley is THE anchor of the entire IT industry. You must be a banker.
Relax, I know who San Jose and the Valley are, I'm familiar in fact with everything you just mentioned. I'll let you have this since you're new here and a "San Jose fan".
All I'm saying is that there's no clear Capital of the Silicon Valley, that's just a nickname adopted by San Jose - the "Silicon Valley" is just that, not the "San Jose metro". The Valley is the pinnacle of IT innovation, but its not the Mecca of the entire tech universe. That's what I used to think though. For beginners, the Internet isn't routed through the Valley, that is a fact.

San Jose's technology companies FUEL SF as a financial center. Why is that so hard to understand? :nuts:
No, they fuel Menlo Park as a VC center. Silicon Valley's (not San Jose's alone) companies help SF, but it was the financial center of the West Coast long before the 1990's.

Relax, I know who San Jose and the Valley are, I'm familiar in fact with everything you just mentioned. I'll let you have this since you're new here and a "San Jose fan".
All I'm saying is that there's no clear Capital of the Silicon Valley, that's just a nickname adopted by San Jose - the "Silicon Valley" is just that, not the "San Jose metro". The Valley is the pinnacle of IT innovation, but its not the Mecca of the entire tech universe. That's what I used to think though. For beginners, the Internet isn't routed through the Valley, that is a fact.


No, they fuel Menlo Park as a VC center. Silicon Valley's (not San Jose's alone) companies help SF, but it was the financial center of the West Coast long before the 1990's.
All hail San Francisco, the "4th largest financial center in North America". :lol:
San Jose is not worthy!! :nuts:

Well, this thread is showing me more about "regional dynamics in the bay Area" that I could ever hope for. Keep it going.
:bash: :lol:

For beginners, the Internet isn't routed through the Valley, that is a fact.

First off I love the Bay, I'm not here to argue this is better than that. But on this point...the Internet is actually routed through the valley. If you ever look at SJs skyline there is a cool gold building that basically controls the Internet, at least in this part of the world. That building has so many lines going in and out and is, in fact, one of the key data transfer points on the Internet backbone. Crazy, huh?

All I'm saying is that there's no clear Capital of the Silicon Valley, that's just a nickname adopted by San Jose - the "Silicon Valley" is just that, not the "San Jose metro".


Actually you also said this:


SJ is barely a city


Maybe you could have gotten away with saying that 10 years ago, but now at least some people will call BS on that statement.


For beginners, the Internet isn't routed through the Valley, that is a fact.


25% of all the traffic in this hemisphere is routed through the gold building in downtown SJ, so to some degree it is. Also pretty much all of all the backbone router and switch equipment that enables the internet to function is made by Silicon Valley Companies: Cisco (SJ), Xilinx (SJ), Juniper Networks (Sunnyvale). Not to mention the top content providers are also located in the area: Google/YouTube (Mountain View), eBay (SJ), Yahoo (Sunnyvale), etc.

The East Bay is sometimes seen as a bedroom area for SF/SJ, but I can see the same thing in some parts of Peninsula. Also, the area around Oakland looks the most industrial. Oakland should be considered as having it's own nature/culture, and I see it as being more underrated than San Jose. Some areas of the Northern East Bay are often associated with education or being "whiter" because of Albany's recognized public schools and the presence of UC Berkeley. Yes, UC Berkeley is a majority non-white student institution, but the faculty and the city are much whiter in comparison to Oakland.

one thing about white people.

The white people in Oakland-Berkeley tend not to be jackasses but rather very cosmopolitan in their exposure to the world-so its not as much an issue here as it might be elsewhere.

Another thing that is rarely known about Oakland is that the city has a very large concentration of highly educated residents. Oakland and Berkeley together have 55,000 residents with graduate degrees. That's astounding.

CA Cities ranked by number of graduate degrees, 2000 Census
1 Los Angeles, CA Los Angeles, CA 208,984
2 San Diego, CA San Diego, CA 103,771
3 San Francisco, CA San Francisco, CA 97,470
4 San Jose, CA Santa Clara, CA 61,030
5 Oakland, CA Alameda, CA 33,802
6 Long Beach, CA Los Angeles, CA 22,656
7 Berkeley, CA Alameda, CA 22,637
8 Fremont, CA Alameda, CA 22,516
9 Sacramento, CA Sacramento, CA 21,588
10 Irvine, CA Orange, CA 21,503

Another thing that is rarely known about Oakland is that the city has a very large concentration of highly educated residents. Oakland and Berkeley together have 55,000 residents with graduate degrees. That's astounding.

CA Cities ranked by number of graduate degrees, 2000 Census
1 Los Angeles, CA Los Angeles, CA 208,984
2 San Diego, CA San Diego, CA 103,771
3 San Francisco, CA San Francisco, CA 97,470
4 San Jose, CA Santa Clara, CA 61,030
5 Oakland, CA Alameda, CA 33,802
6 Long Beach, CA Los Angeles, CA 22,656
7 Berkeley, CA Alameda, CA 22,637
8 Fremont, CA Alameda, CA 22,516
9 Sacramento, CA Sacramento, CA 21,588
10 Irvine, CA Orange, CA 21,503
Many at the University live in Oakland, so that makes sense (I know a couple). Berkeley is only so big, but the school is relatively large.

I also agree that the Oakland-hating is very excessive. It's a fine city.

Many at the University live in Oakland, so that makes sense (I know a couple). Berkeley is only so big, but the school is relatively large.

I also agree that the Oakland-hating is very excessive. It's a fine city.

Props to Oakland!

:banana:

Props to Oakland!

:banana:^^ I second that. I used to spend a lot of time in Oakland before I got married and had kids. Lake Merritt, Lakeshore Blvd., Piedmont Ave., College Ave., The Golden Bear Pub, The Paramount Theatre, Yoshi's, Flint's BBQ.... I had many great times in all those spots. The "Town" deserves a lot more credit than it gets.

Props to Oakland!

:banana:

I actually love Oakland. As a kid I disliked it because of what people said but once I went there I loved it...more than SF in some ways.

Props to Oakland!

:banana:


yup yup.. i also luv oakland....great chinatown!

JoshuaSantos "Cisco is the largest Internet infrastructure company in the world by far and is headquartered in SJ"


Cisco derived it's name from San Francisco. It used to be spelled out in all lower case to indicate that it was a part of a bigger word.

JoshuaSantos "Cisco is the largest Internet infrastructure company in the world by far and is headquartered in SJ"


Cisco derived it's name from San Francisco. It used to be spelled out in all lower case to indicate that it was a part of a bigger word.

Yes, and San Francisco's name is derived from St. Francis...so Cisco is really honoring a Catholic Saint. But it's based here and that's what counts, otherwise I can say that Bank of America, though based in SF, was founded in SJ as the Bank of Italy and is thus part of SJ's economy or something.

PS: The Cisco logo also happens to be the twin towers and main span of the Golden Gate.

JoshuaSantos "Cisco is the largest Internet infrastructure company in the world by far and is headquartered in SJ"


Cisco derived it's name from San Francisco. It used to be spelled out in all lower case to indicate that it was a part of a bigger word.

Which makes it even more ironic that they decided to build their HQ in San Jose.

Cisco derived it's name from San Francisco. It used to be spelled out in all lower case to indicate that it was a part of a bigger word.
The city got its name from the bay, which happens to reach down to San Jose.

The city got its name from the bay, which happens to reach down to San Jose.

When it does reach San Jose, here's what it looks like:

http://baytrail.abag.ca.gov/vtour/map3/access/BTAlviso/AlSlmth.JPG

http://baytrail.abag.ca.gov/vtour/map3/access/BTAlviso/SluWide.JPG

http://www.almadenelementary.org/home/BioSITE+2005-2006/Wastewater+Treatment+&+the+SF+Bay/wwWatersMix.jpg

one thing about white people.

The white people in Oakland-Berkeley tend not to be jackasses but rather very cosmopolitan in their exposure to the world-so its not as much an issue here as it might be elsewhere.
Why do you feel the need to clarify that? Is it exceptional for white people not to be jackasses?

Yes, and San Francisco's name is derived from St. Francis...so Cisco is really honoring a Catholic Saint. But it's based here and that's what counts, otherwise I can say that Bank of America, though based in SF, was founded in SJ as the Bank of Italy and is thus part of SJ's economy or something.

PS: The Cisco logo also happens to be the twin towers and main span of the Golden Gate.

I think Cisco Systems originally wanted to be associated to San Francisco since San Jose was not well known at the time. Otherwise, it would have been named Jose Systems. :-).

San Jose's technology companies FUEL SF as a financial center. Why is that so hard to understand? :nuts:

San francisco's Financial Center was already well establish and big, way before Silicon Valley got started (thanks to Stanford). San Jose is only a portion of Silicon Valley.

Seriously, we are BAY AREA, made up of many different strenghts and beauty. Makes it one of the best place to live.

Sorry, I have no place in this thread but I hate the team that wears black and pink ..oh sorry, I mean black and orange up there in the bay soooo bad, I had to say hello. On behalf of all who bleed blue, GIANTS SUCK!!!!!!!!!

After Several Years Of Decline, Population Starts To Grow Again
Ilene Lelchuk, San Francisco Chronicle, April 5, 2007


The San Francisco and San Jose metropolitan areas are slowly rebounding from the dot-gone population bust of the early 2000s, new U.S. Census Bureau data show.

The nine-county region’s population grew by almost 2 percent, adding more than 136,000 residents between 2000 and 2006, according to data to be released today. That brought the Bay Area’s population on July 1, 2006, to 7.2 million, with about 57 percent of the increase due to international immigration.

"There is something of a comeback for the Bay Area," said Brookings Institution demographer William Frey. The impact of the high-tech industry downturn "may have receded and people may be coming to grips with the expensive housing market. It’s a modest good news story for Bay Area."

The growth is sluggish, however, Frey pointed out. The combined populations of San Francisco, Oakland and Fremont and their surrounding areas grew just 0.5 percent between 2005 and 2006. The area had previously lost population each year this decade, according to Census Bureau estimates. The population of the San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara area grew 1.5 percent between 2005 and 2006.

Compare that to growth of 3.1 percent between 2005 and 2006 in Bakersfield, the state’s fastest-growing metropolitan area. The combined metropolitan area of Riverside, San Bernardino and Ontario came in a close second with a 3 percent growth rate. Demographers who have been watching California’s inland growth say it is driven by the high cost of housing in the Bay Area, Los Angeles and San Diego.

Among the 361 metro areas across the country included in the new census data, the Atlanta area experienced the largest gain between 2000 and 2006, growing by 890,000 people to a population of 5.1 million.

The Dallas-Fort Worth area experienced the second-largest increase, adding 842,000 people between 2000 and 2006 for a total last July of about 6 million people.

Frey and other analysts have noted that immigration, rather than natural increase—births minus deaths—account for a large chunk of the population gains in big cities that grew.

For example, almost 38,000 people moved away from the region that includes Boston, Cambridge and Quincy, Mass., between 2005 and 2006, yet its population grew 0.1 percent because of net international immigration of 24,700 people and natural increase of 19,238 (54,878 births minus 35,640 deaths), according to the new Census Bureau estimates.

In California, the Los Angeles-Orange County region grew 0.1 percent between 2005 and 2006, when 229,000 residents left, 120,000 international migrants arrived and there was natural increase of 126,568. The San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont region, which grew 0.5 percent, lost 42,500 residents to migration within the U.S and gained 27,495 from natural increase and 36,800 from international immigration.

Online resources

Find population estimates at the U.S. Census Bureau’s Web site: www.census.gov.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/SFPopulationGrowth.jpg

Republican Voter Registration in Bay Area Cities, All Cities



Rank City Total voters Registered Republicans
Percentage
of voters that
are
Republican

1Atherton 4, 937 2, 613 52.9%
2Hillsborough 6, 905 3, 517 50.9%
3Danville 25, 116 12, 613 50.2%
4Belvedere 1, 472 709 48.2%
5Monte Sereno 2, 422 1, 122 46.3%
6Clayton 6, 938 3, 169 45.7%
7Moraga 9, 716 4, 295 44.2%
8Woodside 3, 752 1, 654 44.1%
9Los Altos Hills 5, 806 2, 550 43.9%
10Saratoga 19, 584 8, 489 43.3%
11Solano Unincorporated Area 9, 977 4, 322 43.3%
12San Ramon 24, 658 10, 534 42.7%
13Dixon 7, 243 3, 007 41.5%
14Pleasanton 35, 259 14, 557 41.3%
15Orinda 12, 091 4, 986 41.2%
16Rio Vista 3, 232 1, 324 41.0%
17Livermore 39, 795 16, 252 40.8%
18Lafayette 15, 327 6, 202 40.5%
19Brentwood 14, 993 6, 039 40.3%
20Los Altos 19, 262 7, 742 40.2%
21Walnut Creek 39, 759 15, 962 40.1%
22Portola Valley 3, 310 1, 324 40.0%
23Napa Unincorporated Area 15, 673 6, 240 39.8%
24Ross 1, 605 628 39.1%
25Los Gatos 19, 049 7, 405 38.9%
26Morgan Hill 17, 290 6, 592 38.1%
27Vacaville 37, 711 14, 297 37.9%
28Dublin 14, 399 5, 145 35.7%
29St. Helena 3, 072 1, 086 35.4%
30Contra Costa Unincorporated Area 74, 053 25, 582 34.5%
31Windsor 11, 561 3, 926 34.0%
32Tiburon 5, 595 1, 837 32.8%
33Fairfield 39, 491 12, 819 32.5%



we only hold the majority in those three cities, yet, if democrats expect california to vote democrat, they need to get the bay to carry the state, old news.

California voting trends, 2005


San Francisco Bay Area
With the findings of this study, the San Francisco Bay Area can now officially be
designated the most liberal region in the country. With three cities in the top ten liberal list –
Berkeley, Oakland and San Francisco – no other region comes close to matching the Bay Area.
In addition to Berkeley, Oakland, and San Francisco, other Bay Area cities rank highly
on the national liberal scale. Rounding out the major Bay Area cities ranking on the national
liberal list are: Daly City 30, Hayward 33, Vallejo 41, Santa Rosa 57, Sunnyvale 62, Fremont 64,
and San Jose 74. Even Concord, the most conservative major city in the Bay Area, comes in at
79 on the national liberal list, making it more liberal than cites such as Austin, Tacoma, Miami
and Las Vegas.
San Francisco has long been tagged as the most liberal city in the country, however
BACVR research now shatters this myth. San Francisco ranks a distant ninth place on the list of
America’s most liberal cities, falling behind lesser know cities such as Gary, Indiana and
Newark, New Jersey. San Francisco is not even the most liberal city in the Bay Area, ranking
below Berkeley and Oakland.
As an infamous site of numerous political protests and demonstrations during the 1960s
and 70s, Berkeley continues to maintain its reputation as a hotbed of left-wing activism, being
the most liberal city in California and the third most liberal in the nation. The University of
California at Berkeley serves as a magnet for left-wing students and professors. Additionally, the liberal atmosphere draws the similarly minded from other Bay Area communities, creating a self-
selecting, extremely left-wing population.
Oakland, long in the shadow of San Francisco, emerges with a surprising showing,
ranking as more liberal than its larger neighbor across the Bay. Combining an ethnically diverse
population, the plurality being African American, with pockets of upper-middle class ideological
liberals, Oakland ranks as the fifth most liberal city in America.
Southern California
Cities in Southern California, on the other hand, are almost split exactly in half between
liberal and conservative. Out of thirty-nine cities, twenty are considered liberal and nineteen are
considered conservative. These same cities have an average conservative percentage of 48.51%
and a liberal percentage of 51.49%, making the overall difference only 2.98%. Bakersfield,
Orange, and Escondido top the conservative list with percentages over 64% as conservative.
Inglewood, Los Angeles, and El Monte are the top three liberal cities in Southern California with
liberal percentages above 69%.






















http://www.votingresearch.org/Reports.html



there you go, that site is awesome!!!

Someone should post the 2010 census data here.

Contra Costa County grows the fastest, while Oakland shrinks and San Francisco becomes more Asian

Updated March 8, 2011 at 1:56 p.m.

New Census figures released Tuesday show dramatic changes in the Bay Area over the last decade, with rapid population growth in Contra Costa County, an African-American exodus from Oakland, and a surge in the number of Asians living in Silicon Valley.

The nine-county region reached a population of 7.15 million people, the Census showed.

Contra Costa County Grows the Fastest

Contra Costa County grew by more than 100,000 people over the past decade, making it the fastest-growing in the Bay Area on both an absolute and percentage basis.

Observers say most of that growth occurred in the eastern parts of the county, like Antioch and Brentwood, where acres of cherry orchards and corn fields were bulldozed to make room for new subdivisions.

Unlike most of the Bay Area, where the African-American population dropped, the black population in Contra Costa County grew.

"A lot of people moved out from Oakland, including members of my family," said Paul Cobb, publisher of the African-American weekly, the Oakland Post.

"Single mothers with latchkey kids moved out there because they didn't want to have to worry about drugs and crime," Cobb said.

Steve Spiker, research director for the Oakland-based Urban Strategies Council, said Contra Costa County's population growth would have appeared even greater if it was measured before the real estate bubble burst and the foreclosure crisis began.

"A lot of these folks were foreclosed on while the census was being conducted," Spiker said. "It's unclear how many of them were missed."

Oakland Shrinks

Among California's 20 largest cities, Oakland was one of only two to shrink between 2000 and 2010 (Santa Ana was the other). Census figures show the East Bay city lost 8,760 residents over the past decade.

During the course of the decade, nearly 33,000 African-Americans left Oakland, the data shows, while the numbers of white, Asian and Hispanic residents increased.

The population loss came despite the building of thousands of new condo units, part of former Mayor Jerry Brown's much-ballyhooed "10K Plan" to reinvigorate downtown Oakland.

"A lot of people came, but a lot of people also left," Cobb said.

San Francisco Becomes More Asian

Like Oakland, San Francisco also saw an exodus of African-Americans, but this was more than offset by growth in the city's the city's Asian population — which rose by more than 30,000 even as the numbers of blacks dropped.

Overall, the city's population grew by 3.7 percent to 805,235 residents between 2000 and 2010.

"The Asian community is growing everywhere [in San Francisco] — the Excelsior, Portola, Visitacion Valley," said Max Kirkeberg, a professor emeritus of geography at San Francisco State University.

Ling-chi Wang, a professor emeritus in the ethnic studies department at the University of California, Berkeley, predicted the numbers would continue to grow as the visibility of San Francisco's Asian community increased after the appointment of Edwin M. Lee as its first Chinese-American mayor.

Many Asian Americans are also moving into newly built condos in the South Beach and Mission Bay neighborhoods, he said, fueled by the biotech campus of the University of California, San Francisco, which is still under construction.

The number of whites in the city rose by a modest 5,000.

San Jose Nears 1 Million Residents

San Jose remained the Bay Area's largest city, growing to 945,942 residents in 2010. Unlike San Francisco and Oakland, where the white population grew, San Jose saw its number of Caucasian residents drop.

In the meantime, the number of Asian residents skyrocketed, buoyed, observers say, by new immigrants from China and India who are moving to Silicon Valley for jobs in the tech sector.

"The Silicon Valley industries have used the H-1B visa to create its new economy and so new bridges have been built between San Jose and Bangalore," said Raj Jayadev, director of Silicon Valley Debug.

According to the census, San Jose had 303,138 Asian residents in 2010 — approximately 35,000 more than San Francisco.

"These are folks in technology jobs, they're engineers, they're scientists, they're entrepreneurs" said Russell Hancock, the president and CEO of Joint Venture: Silicon Valley Network, a public-private collaborative that brings together government and business leaders in the South Bay.

"The census proves San Jose is among the most cosmopolitan cities in the country, more so than San Francisco," Hancock said.

With more than 1.7 million residents, Santa Clara County remained the region's most populous as it added 99,057 residents.

Correction: An earlier version of this story erroneously reported 40,000 African Americans had left Oakland over the past decade. The correct number is approximately 33,000.

Source: The Bay Citizen (http://s.tt/129cO)

[B]Oakland Shrinks

Among California's 20 largest cities, Oakland was one of only two to shrink between 2000 and 2010 (Santa Ana was the other). Census figures show the East Bay city lost 8,760 residents over the past decade.

During the course of the decade, nearly 33,000 African-Americans left Oakland, the data shows, while the numbers of white, Asian and Hispanic residents increased.

The population loss came despite the building of thousands of new condo units, part of former Mayor Jerry Brown's much-ballyhooed "10K Plan" to reinvigorate downtown Oakland.

"A lot of people came, but a lot of people also left," Cobb said.



Decline has been the long-term trend in Oakland, the 1990s being the significant exception. The exodus of African Americans from Oakland has accelerated. As for the 10-k plan, what we've seen in NYC & especially Chicago is that rampant gentirification reduces population, owing to smaller household sizes. So not surprising that Oakland's declined with the uptick of gentrification.

Hoofing it to shops and services is easy in San Francisco and Oakland, according to a survey being released today that ranks the two among the top 10 most walkable big cities in the country.

Among the nation's 50 largest cities, San Francisco was the second most walkable, after New York, and Oakland ranked 10th, said Seattle's Walk Score, which assigns numerical ratings on a scale of 1 to 100 that quantify how close any address is to amenities like grocery stores, restaurants, schools and parks. Being within one-quarter mile of destinations garners the highest ratings.


Top 10 walkable cities

Walk Score ranked the 50 largest U.S. cities by how easily residents can walk to amenities like shops, restaurants and parks, on a scale of 1 to 100.

1. New York (85.3)

2. San Francisco (84.9)

3. Boston (79.2)

4. Chicago (74.3)

5. Philadelphia (74.1)

6. Seattle (73.7)

7. Washington, D.C. (73.2)

8. Miami (72.5)

9. Minneapolis (69.3)

10. Oakland (68.2)

Source: Walk Score



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/07/19/BUUK1KCC67.DTL#ixzz1TCikc2NH

SAN JOSE (CBS 5) (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/san-francisco-bay-guardian/san-jose-residents-longest-life-spans-u-150514662.html)— San Jose has topped a list of U.S. cities where residents enjoy the longest life spans.

A study by The Daily Beast and the Centers for Disease Control looked at decades worth lifespan data to find out in which cities people lived the longest.

In San Jose, the average life expectancy was 79.2 years for men, 82.9 years for women.

Following San Jose on the list, San Francisco came in 6th. Men there live an average of 75.9 years, while women live 82.52 years. Oakland also made the list, coming in 15th. There, men live 76.4 years on average, women 81.2 years.

Even tourists like Mack Gillen of Ireland could be found basking in San Jose's youthful glow. "I'm not surprised people live longer because it's laid back, it's relaxed," he said.

It seems as if the farther west you go, the better the longevity. Only two cities in the northeast made the cut.

The west coast had the majority of the spots on the list of 20 cities, with California having the most out of all the states.

The study did not specify why people in the top cities listed were living longer.

The full list can be found at this link (http://www.thedailybeast.com/galleries/2011/07/18/longest-living-cities.html).

Turns out the Tooth Fairy plays favorites.

She (or is it he?) leaves more cash for West Coast kids than their toothless Central, Southern or East Coast peers, according to a new survey by Visa.

For each bicuspid, molar or incisor stuffed under a California (or other West Coast) pillow at night, the Tooth Fairy leaves an average of $2.80, up a dime from last year despite the tough economy.

All told, that's a whopping $56 for a mouthful of 20 Bay Area baby teeth.

Those on the East Coast, by comparison, get ripped off, earning just $2.10 per tooth, down from $3.40 in 2010. That's just $42 for a New Yorker's mouthful.

Southern state kids also saw a dramatic drop in Tooth Fairy love, getting $2.60 per tooth, down from $3.30.

The Midwest was apparently on par with the West, getting $2.80 per tooth as well, but that was down 10 cents from the year before.

In short, the Tooth Fairy likes us better -- at least this year.

The survey, which included responses from 1,006 adults nationwide, also found that 10 percent of kids got nothing their teeth while 18 percent got a whopping $5 each.

Visa conducted the survey to help promote its San Francisco-based financial literacy programs.



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cityinsider/detail?entry_id=93807#ixzz1TJds0xQa